It's long been said by proponents that GHGs reemit energy back to earth ... apparently, this is not necessarily true.

"

The professor reminds us that, “at night time, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up.”

Thereafter, the direction of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere can only go upwards into the upper atmosphere and then out into deep space.

Nahle says we are then forced to conclude that, “atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission.

... and ..

"

Nahle neatly sums it up, “The warming effect (misnamed "the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat.”

Thanks, Bo, for pointing out this out. Nahle's demonstration is so very simple, elegant and indisputable.

That the

warming effect (misnamed “the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat,

illustrates how the whole edifice of AGW is premised on wrong assumptions about the direction of causation. This is not the only important instance where AGW-believers have based their conclusions on an erroneous assumption about the direction of causation. Dr. Spencer has spoken of the same kind of error in direction of causation concerning cloud cover and temperature. The Lockart et al. study that I noted in the thread “The Drought-makers” points out another case where IPCC authors erroneously attributed causation regarding drought and temperature in the Murray-Darling Basin (which the IPCC authors then generalized to droughts the world over)--in this case, the IPCC authors merely engaged in a question-begging exercise, in which they simply assumed at the beginning what they were trying to conclude.

The mistakes the AGW-believers make in constructing their AGW story are all so sophomoric.

Thanks, Bo, for pointing out this out. Nahle's demonstration is so very simple, elegant and indisputable.

That the

warming effect (misnamed “the greenhouse effect") of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat,

illustrates how the whole edifice of AGW is premised on wrong assumptions about the direction of causation. This is not the only important instance where AGW-believers have based their conclusions on an erroneous assumption about the direction of causation. Dr. Spencer has spoken of the same kind of error in direction of causation concerning cloud cover and temperature. The Lockart et al. study that I noted in the thread “The Drought-makers” points out another case where IPCC authors erroneously attributed causation regarding drought and temperature in the Murray-Darling Basin (which the IPCC authors then generalized to droughts the world over)--in this case, the IPCC authors merely engaged in a question-begging exercise, in which they simply assumed at the beginning what they were trying to conclude.

The mistakes the AGW-believers make in constructing their AGW story are all so sophomoric.

Your welcome mindis .. .and thanks for all the great contribution you've given.

Science is going to catch up the these guys one day. Me being a solar guy, these are exciting times for me. If cycle24 turns out to the dud that it seems to be turning out to be, we may get some decent data regarding the effects of the many energy streams from the sun on earths climate.